Question 1: What is the most important distinction between a systems-oriented approach to analysis vs an event-oriented approach?
From what I understand, the two most important distinctions between a systems-oriented approach to analysis and an event-oriented approach is their differences in focus and linearity. However, these two concepts are very inter-related.
By focus what I mean is to what level outside factors are brought into understanding a problem. In other words, it is the difference between looking at a problem from a small vs a big-picture point of view - or even strategic vs tactical. The event-oriented approach tends to look at, as it's name suggests, isolated events and trends. In this approach we look at event "A" and ask ourselves, "how can we keep event 'A' from happening?" Well, from what we understand, if we implement policy "x" it should cause event "B" which should keep event "A" from happening. Clean, simple, easy. This approach is very short-term and very tactical in the sense that it is very narrow sighted; we see a problem and work to fix it without taking the time to understand how our decision might impact other factors related to the initial problem. The systems-oriented approach takes a step back from the problem and, instead of looking at a the individual events, it looks at the problem as it exists among a network of inter-related systems. This approach takes a big-picture, long-term, strategic look at the problem. Instead of looking at event "A" and asking what was its cause and how can we keep it from happening, the systems-oriented approach to analysis looks at the environment in which event "A" exists in the form of cycles or "systems." From here you can ask, "is event 'A' really something we want to stop?", "if we implement policy 'x', how will that impact the rest of the system/other related systems?", "how can we stop event 'A' while minimizing negative consequences that are produced by the other systems?"
The second distinction that I felt was most important was the difference in linearity especially in relation to polarity. The event-oriented approach to analysis looks at any one event as a product of a series of events whereas the systems-oriented approach to analysis looks at an event as a product of a system(s) of causal factors. Instead of looking at an event as a product of a series of events, the systems-oriented approach links together existing non-polar causal factors that help to form the causal forces (loops/systems) present in the situation in which the problem exists. From there, an analyst can assign a polarity to the causal factors to play out how the problem came to be. The ability to look at the situation without polarity is important because it allows an analyst to see in what other directions the system can go and how that could impact the other systems.
Question 2: What do you think will be the greatest challenge to practicing systems thinking as an intelligence analyst?
I see a couple different challenges in practicing systems thinking as an intelligence analyst. The first and I feel, the most obvious, is the challenge of time. Systems-thinking requires a fuller, deeper, and overall better understanding of not just the problem but the environment in which the problem exists. This level of understanding is going to take time, at least more time that getting a more brief understanding of the problem. While this level of understanding may produce a more useful product, if that product is not able to be produced within the time-frame in which it is usable then it is useless.
The second challenge is simplicity. Being able to tell someone that policy "x" will produce event "B" thereby stopping event "A" is much simpler than trying to describe a system of causal forces. If your product is over-complicated and therefore incomprehensible to the consumer, it is once again, useless.
The third challenge deals with coverage. When looking at a situation how do you decide what systems/causal forces you include and which one are more or less irrelevant. A great characteristic of the systems-thinking approach to analysis is that it is expandable and can be refocused to get a more or less broad view of the situation. However, the question then becomes how can you judge when you've zoomed in too much or zoomed out too far.
Question 1 Response: Elisabeth, I like how you mentioned the differences between systems-orientation and event-orientation to be analogous to strategic vs. tactical analysis. Although I did not use this specific analogy, (mine was diagnosis vs. preventative) I think we both have a similar understanding of how event-orientated thinking is ideal for the "here and now" situation and the systems-oriented thinking to be ideal for long-term decisions. I also liked how you mentioned the idea of systems-oriented analysis allowing for a study of interacting systems dynamically playing off each other's variables. This is something I did not highlight in my blog and I thought it was great how you mentioned it here since it is obviously a very significant aspect of systems-oriented analysis.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2 Response: I liked how you organized the challenges of systems thinking into three distinct factors. I whole-heartedly agree with the issue of time that you mentioned in your first paragraph. I mentioned this also in my response. I believe time is a crucial factor when it comes to engaging in a systems-oriented analysis not just because of the product time constraint, but also because of the human factor. For some people a time constraint may make it more difficult to think clearly, let alone produce a thorough systems-analysis. However I differ in opinion with you when talk about the issue of simplicity. I do not think that a critical issue should be stripped of its complexity just for the sake of a quick and easy analysis. I believe that if policy makers are made aware of how complex an issue is, this will lead them to use more caution and careful thought when debating about an important decision. I think this would lead to better policy making in general and less intuition based, shortcut decisions.
You have brought up a lot of valid points within your post, some of which I had not even thought of to put in mine but upon seeing them are clear that they should be considered, especially concerning your last point for the personal challenges question. I find it extremely difficult sometimes in weeding out what casual forces to include what forces to leave out. I either tend to become too general where really nothing can be productively analyzed or I become too narrowly focused that I get lost in the details of the situation. When do you stop identifying forces within the system before it becomes too complicated? The systems approach I believe is somewhat put in place because it can be altered to the amount of detail needed for specific cases however, like you stated when do you know that enough is enough and the scale on which you are thinking is actually making the analysis more difficult. In order to face this challenge, I wonder if it would be better to start specific when identifying the causal forces and moving outward to build the system or if moving from more general terms to specific forces would facilitate staying within certain bounds.
ReplyDelete